Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

India

I propose editing the India section of this page to indicate the fact that pre 1957 works are granted copyright protection 50 years after the author's death.This editorial says: "There is also the decision of the division bench of the Allahabad high court in Newspapers Ltd vs Ratna Shankar (AIR 1977) which says that all copyrights from the time immediately before the commencement of the act of 1957 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the earlier Copyright Act, 1914." Vishvas vasuki (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The clear intention of the 1991 law was to extend such copyrights to 60pma. I don't think there has been a court ruling that indicated that Article 79 also applied to the 1991 law, even if it's arguable. There was a 1977 ruling (which you mentioned) that did indicate that Article 79 did act to preserve old terms in 1958, so I think it's fair to say that pre-1958 photographs are still based on date of creation rather than date of publication, but not sure we should extrapolate any more than that. That editorial was by a former judge, but I don't think it has actually been ruled on thus far, and I would wait for that -- the background documents for the 1991 extension were clear as to the intended effect. The editorial is interesting to note, but I don't think it should be policy without something more concrete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
Sorry, I missed this discussion. So according to you, the copyright in India lasts 50 years from creation for pictures before 1940, and 60 years from creation for pictures between 1941 and 1957? There were a number of pictures of Gandhi from the 1930s deleted, and not restored. Are they OK? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I think photos before 1941 are clearly still 50 years from creation, which expired before the 1991 law came into effect. Whether the 1991 law had the term-extending effect as intended is the question in the editorial; it is a difference between the plain intent of the 1991 law, and the actual language in it. Not sure which way a court would rule, to be honest. I think there was a Romanian case where the law was worded opposite of intended, and the ruling followed the intent and not the letter. So, to me it's better to assume the law acted as intended (i.e. extended the term of existing works) until a court ruling clarifies, in which case 1941 and later photos were presumably extended to 60 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadian public domain

I'm having trouble finding a government document that states that photographs taken prior to 1 January 1949 in Canada are public domain, as this project page suggests. Can someone provide a link? CanadianJudoka (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

See the footer at this page and the discussion at Template talk:PD-Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, I found two university libraries that mention it on current websites: Ryerson and Guelph. CanadianJudoka (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
One must figure out the result of the combination of the effects of the following documents:
Note its sections 7, 58 and 61: (N.B.: Keep in mind that "this Act" means this amending act (S.C. 1997, c. 24) while "the Act" means the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42))
  • "7. Section 10 of the Act is replaced (...)" (N.B.: Remember that the part that was thus removed from section 10 of the Act was the part that provided that the copyright term for all photographs was 50 years after their creation, including for photographs authored by natural persons. Cf. the previous text of section 10 of the Copyright Act before this 1997 amendment.)
  • "58. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as reviving a copyright that expired before the coming into force of this section."
  • "61. (...) This Act or any provision of this Act (...) comes into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."
"(...) the Governor General in Council (...), pursuant to section 61 of An Act to amend the Copyright Act, assented to on April 25, 1997, being chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997, hereby fixes
  • September 1, 1997 as the day on which (...) sections (...) 58 (...) of that Act, shall come into force (...)"
" Order fixing the dates upon which certain provisions of An Act to amend the Copyright Act, being chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 1997 [Bill C-32], shall come into force, as follows: (...)
  • Friday, January 1, 1999 -- sections 7 (...) "
The reader will not have missed the peculiar fact that sections 58 and 7 of the amending act were put into force at different dates. This causes an interesting situation. By the combined effect of section 58 of the amending act and of order in council 1997-1065, nothing in this Act shall be construed as reviving a copyright that expired before September 1, 1997. Whereas, by the combined effect of section 7 of the amending act and of order in council 1998-0364, the old version of section 10 of the Copyright Act remained in force until January 1, 1999, and thus, between September 1, 1997 and January 1, 1999, photographs authored by natural persons continued to have their copyrights expire 50 years after their creation (another section of the Copyright Act provides that copyrights expire at the end of calendar years, so in practice the photos in question would include those created between January 1, 1947 and December 31, 1948). But the expiration of the copyright of those photos was not subject to the anti-revival provision of section 58 of the amending act, because order in council 1997-1065 had the effect of explicitely excluding those photos from the application of section 58 of the amending act. So, was the copyright of those photos revived or not? There are two possible solutions, none of which sound really satisfactory. The first solution would be to ignore section 58, do as if it was superfluous and did not exist, and consider that no expired copyrights are revived anyway. The second solution would be to assume that the government actually wanted 1997, not 1999, to be the limit when it limited the application of the anti-revival provision of section 58 only to copyrights expired before September 1, 1997, and thus section 58 is to be read, a contrario, to mean that the copyrights that had expired in 1997 and 1998 on photographs, under the old version of section 10 of the Copyright Act, were revived in 1999, under the new version of section 10.
-- Asclepias (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nigerian public domain

I need help to know the Copyright Protection Law of Nigeria because till now, no law is mentioned in Wikimedia Commons. Best regards. --Faycal.09 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Croatia

An exception applies to the photographic and similarly-made works, and the works of applied art, which are public domain in Croatia and in the United States if published in 1970 or earlier.

This doesn't seem correct. If the work was first published between 11 May 1966 and 31 December 1969 and with a copyright notice, then it seems that it would still be protected by copyright in the United States thanks to the w:Universal Copyright Convention. Could someone verify? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel welcome to correct it if the works are still copyrighted in the United States. I've calculated this by considering the URAA year. These works were protected for 25 years in Yugoslavia, the new act was passed in Croatia in 1999, therefore 1999-25=1974. The URAA year is 1996,[1] 1996-25=1971. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghana copyright

This link [[2]] has the 2005 Copyright Act (Act 690) for Ghana. As i am no legal expert, i am hesitant to include it myself. But someone more experienced may be able to verify and add it, if it's authentic and actual. GermanJoe (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Added, but feel free to improve (IANAL). GermanJoe (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Somalia

Somalia says "There has been no copyright protection in Somalia since the start of the country's civil war in 1991 and the subsequent destruction of the national copyright office. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the last time the copyright office updated its records was in 1986." That strikes me as a complete non sequitur. The question of whether or not the law provides for copyright protection does not depend on current records or the existence of a copyright office. (Not to mention that the link no longer says that; I don't know if facts have changed or WIPO just messed with their pages.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

South Africa

The Copyright Act 1978 (No. 98 of 1978) defines works of architecture as artistic works

“artistic work” means, irrespective of the artistic quality thereof—
 (b) works of architecture, being either buildings or models of buildings; or

and infringing copies of artistic works as a copy of the work

“infringing copy”, in relation to—
 (a) a literary, musical or artistic work or a published edition, means a copy thereof;

and copy as

“copy” means a reproduction of a work, and, in the case of a literary, musical or artistic work, a cinematograph film or a computer program, also an adaptation thereof: Provided that an object shall not be taken to be a copy of a work of architecture unless the object is a building or a model of a building;

Since photos are neither buildings or models of buildings, photos of buildings are not copies of the artistic work and can not be infringing copies

--NJR_ZA (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, article 7 of the act says that:
'Copyright in an artistic work vests the exclusive right to do or to authorize the doing of any of the following acts in the Republic:
(a) Reproducing the work in any manner or form;
[...]
(e) making an adaptation of the work;
[...]'
and the act defines reproduction and adaptation of artistic works as follows:
'“reproduction”, in relation to— [...]
(b) an artistic work, includes a version produced by converting the work into a three-dimensional form or, if it is in three dimensions, by converting it into a two-dimensional form;'
'“adaptation”, in relation to— [...]
(c) an artistic work, includes a transformation of the work in such a manner that the original or substantial features thereof remain recognizable;'
Also, clause 23(1) states that:
'Copyright shall be infringed by any person, not being the owner of the copyright, who, without the licence of such owner, does or causes any other person to do, in the Republic, any act which the owner has the exclusive rights to do or to authorize.'
From these it seems that the copyright holder of a building would the only one allowed to take photos of it (or authorise the taking of such photos), or to make recognisable adaptations of such photos.
The only reference to "infringing copy" (besides its definition) I can find in the act relates to the importation of copies (clause 28(2)), so it does not seem to have wide implications.
There does seem to be a FOP-like exemption for cinematograph films in clause 15(3), but I don't see one for photos. --Avenue (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about the effect of URAA

This question has come up at Commons:Deletion requests/File:M.C.Cowdrey1954.png but I suppose it is of wider applicability. Is it correct that the URAA copyright restoration provisions require that an Australian work, which entered the public domain in Australia in 2005, receives US copyright protection until 95 years after the date it was first published? - Pointillist (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

To be pedantic, it means that it receives the same US copyright protection as it would if it had been first published in the US following all copyright formalities and properly renewed. Except in applying the URAA only to works still in copyright in their source nation in 1996*, the US does not follow the rule of the shorter term.
* Usually. Any country that does not have its copyrights protected in the US under Berne or other mutual treaties can get their works restored under the URAA if they do become a party to a international or bilateral copyright treaty with the US, and Vietnam and a couple other countries have done so, making their dates later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Honduras

Hi! Could serve as a base for the list of country-specific laws, here regarding Honduras. Feel free to recheck and/or reedit.

According to Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law (approved by Decree No. 4-99-E) (2006) (.pdf)Spanish:

  • Copyrightable works
    • Individual works: 75 years after author's death (art. 44).
    • Collaborative works: 75 years after death of the last surviving author (art. 45.1).
    • Anonymous or pseudonymous works: 75 years after first publication or (without publication within 50 years after creation) 70 years since the end of the year of creation. If the author of an anonymous work becomes known during this period (**** unclear: 50 or 75 years?? ****), 75 years after author's death applies. (art. 45.2).
    • Collective works: 75 years after first publication or (without publication within 50 years after creation) 70 years since the end of the year of creation (art. 45.3).
    • Governmental works: Laws, regulations, agreements and other provisions emanated from the corresponding organs of the State which were previously published in the "Diario Oficial La Gaceta" are not eligible for copyright (art. 54).

Gunnex (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PD in American Samoa

Can anyone answer this: Does United States copyright law apply uniformly within the "offshore" territories of the US as well as in the states/DC? Specifically, I'm considering uploading some images that were taken in American Samoa. In the US proper these images would be in the PD due to {{PD-US-1978-89}}, but I'm concerned the same law may not apply in American Samoa. Help? — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 02:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Faroe Islands

User:MGA73 added a section about the Faroe Islands. For example, it now says that "Film are protected for the rest of the year the film was first made available to the public + 50 full years. If it was never made public it is protected the rest of the year the film was created + 50 full years. (§ 56)" Is this really accurate? In the European Union, this term is used for films which do not meet the threshold of originality, whereas films which do meet the threshold of originality get the term extended to 70 years after the death of certain people (see EU directive 93/98/EEC articles 2.2 and 3.3). From what I have understood, the Faroese copyright law is similar to the Danish one, so it seems likely that the Faroe Islands would use the same duration. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad Stefan4... The answer is in § 53. I'll strik the bullit. --MGA73 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indonesian

Problematic clause "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the government, except if the copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;" might get more than 2.000 files get deleted from Commons because it was taken from government websites, and almost all government websites put © mark on their footer.

Discuss it at Commons:Village_pump#All_Indonesian_government_pictures_are_copyvio permalink. Bennylin (yes?) 23:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New copyright law

Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Indonesia should be updated to reflect UU No. 28/2014 (transcription work in progress in Indonesian Wikisource. Bennylin (yes?) 13:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it need to be changed the older one from year 2002 (Indonesian Copyright Act No. 19, 2002) are now obsolete replaced by Copyright act no. 28, 2014.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Addendum id:s:Halaman:UU 28 2014.pdf/1 Already explain everything.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 14:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cuba?

Hi, Could someone make a short resume of [3] please? It is needed for this case: File:Dr Ernest Mercier Cuba.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

According to that law, the period of protection is rather short: 25 (veinticinco) years following the death of the author (Art. 43). BUT in case of a photographic work (obra fotográfica) or applied art work, the copyright period is 10 (diez) years following the use of the work (Art. 47). Anyone is entitled to use a work no longer under copyright, provided the name of the author is mentioned (Art. 49).
However, art. 49 continues saying that Notwithstanding this (No obstante), the user will have to make a special contribution to a fund for the development of science, education and culture in the country. Details about the contribution and the amount will be spelled out by the Ministry of Culture. That's unusual. I wonder if this restriction is in force? --Lubiesque (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Is that the current law? According to w:List of parties to international copyright agreements, Cuba is a signatory to the Berne Convention, which stipulates a copyright term which is longer than the term you mention above.
In SOU 1956:25 pp. 352-353, there is some discussion about royalties for works whose copyright has expired, similar to what you mention above. It says that this idea originates from 19th century France and that there were at least five countries (Italy, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia) which had this rule as of 1956 when the document was written. I don't know whether those five countries (or their successor states) still have this rule or whether it is currently in use elsewhere (apart from Cuba). --Stefan4 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, there has been only one change to the copyright law of 1977: the very short Decreto-Ley Nº 156 of 1994. The amending decree increases the general period of protection to 50 years after death. In case of a photographic work, the period of protection is increased to 25 years following the use (utilización) of the work. The preamble of the decree states that the reason for the change is to bring the Cuban copyright law within an accepted range of internationally recognized standards. There is nothing about any retroactive effect of the new law. --Lubiesque (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

United States

KDS4444, I partially reverted some of your recent changes to the "United States" section of this page. In particular:

  • I reverted your change of "Anything published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain" to "Anything published before January 1, 1923 in the United States is in the public domain" as the original was correct it in it's statement that in the U.S. anything published anywhere in the world before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain.
  • I reverted your change in which you claimed that copyright assigned to the U.S. Government by contractors are "therefore in the public domain". This is not the caae, in fact copyright assignment by a contractor is one of the classic examples of a method by which a U.S. Government agency can end up owning copyright.
  • I removed the Smithsonian Institution section you added. It incorrectly summarized SI's unique status as a trust instrumentality of the U.S. Government. The SI can, and does, have federal employees whose creations in the course of their official duties become PD (for which Commons has {{PD-USGov-SI}}). If you believe otherwise, this should probably be first discussed at Commons:Village Pump/Copyright.

—RP88 (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jamaica

I've updated the section for Jamaica to indicate that with the The Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2015 No.13 Jamaica now has a copyright term of life + 95 years (per §5 of the amendment) and for works of unknown authorship the term is now 95 years from when made available to the public (per §6 of the amendment). The former copyright term was life + 50 years. In addition, per §29 of the amendment, the term extension is retroactive to 1 January 2012. Jamaican authors who died on or before 31 December 1961 remain in the public domain in Jamaica. Works whose authors died between 1 January 1962 and 31 December 1964 were public domain in Jamaica, but are no longer. —RP88 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

American unpublished

The United States section could use some expansion for works that are unpublished (e.g., archival photos with no extant record of publication). My understanding is that they would be life+70, but what if the author is unknown? Creation+120? What if the creation date is unknown? 120 from the estimate? What about the whole not before 2047 part in the chart? czar 08:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If the author and the creation year both are unknown, then it's still 120 years from creation. You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that a year of copyright expiration always can be determined, although it may in some cases be impossible to determine the correct year of expiration. In some cases, there may be information in the work which gives you some guidance on when the work was created. For example, if the work is a photograph which shows a building, then you might be able to find out that the building was constructed in 1899 and demolished in 1950. In that case, you have shown that the work was created less than 120 years ago, although the exact year of creation is unknown. Note that a court does not need to identify the exact copyright expiration date of a work. A court only needs to determine if the copyright was violated, and for that, it is enough to determine if the copyright had expired as of the point when the material was used. For example, let's assume that a work was published on 1 January 2016 without permission from the person who claims to be the copyright holder. There are then three options:
  1. The year of creation is unknown, but it can be shown that the work was created less than 120 years ago → the court rules that the work was copyrighted on 1 January 2016.
  2. The year of creation is unknown, but it can be shown that the work was created more than 120 years before 1 January 2016 → the court rules that the work wasn't copyrighted on 1 January 2016.
  3. The year of creation is unknown and it can't be determined if the work was created more than 120 years before 1 January 2016 → the outcome depends on the burden of proof, I presume. If the user of the material is required to prove that the material was created more than 120 years ago, then the court would probably fine the user of the material. On the other hand, if the rights holder is required to prove that the material was created less than 120 years ago, then the person using the material wouldn't be fined. The burden of proof can vary in copyright cases, and I don't know how a court would determine a case like this. For example, if the user of the material claims that he has a permission to use the material, then he would typically have to prove that this permission was granted, which can be impossible if the evidence is confidential or if it depends on a dead link or a website which has been modified. If such evidence can't be presented, then the court would typically accept a claim from the rights holder that the material was used without permission. On the other hand, if it is disputed that the rights holder is the rights holder, then the rights holder would typically have to provide evidence that he is the rights holder, and a court would typically rule that this person has no right to compensation if he isn't able to prove this. Also, if evidence is unavailable for some court ruling A, but evidence becomes available in time for some other court ruling B, then court ruling B would probably follow situation 1 or 2 above regardless of the outcome of court ruling A.
The "before 2047" part in the chart comes from an error that Britain originally made in the s:Copyright Act 1709 and which the Americans imported as the s:Copyright Act of 1790. According to the Copyright Act 1709, the copyright to a work would expire at the latest 28 years after the work was first published, but the 18th century Britons failed to realise that it is useful if the copyright to unpublished material also expires at some point, so unpublished works were given a perpetual copyright term. This mistake has since been haunting the copyright laws of Britain and many former British colonies and has been fixed in some but not all affected countries. In the United States, it was fixed in the s:Copyright Act of 1976 by introducing the 70 years p.m.a. and 120 years from creation rules. However, as compensation to the rights holders of old unpublished works, USA decided that all unpublished works would remain copyrighted until the end of 2002 (or until the expiration of the 70/120 year term, whichever was later). If an old work became published between 1978 and 2002, the 2002 limit would be extended to the end of 2047. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Stefan2, thanks, but wouldn't it be worth clarifying the U.S. section along these lines? Question about #1: copyrighted on 2016-01-01 by whom? (If the original author is dead, it would be posthumously copyrighted until 70 p.m.a.?) czar 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
By default, the original copyright holder is the author, or the author's employer if it is a work for hire. The copyright may then be transferred to other people. If the copyright at some point is held by a person, and that person dies, then the copyright ends up in the hands of that person's heirs.
Theoretically, a work always has a copyright holder, and the work's copyright always has an expiration date. Practically, it may be impossible to determine who the copyright holder is, and it may be impossible to determine if the copyright's expiration date is in the past or in the future. This is nothing specifically related to copyright; the entire legal system has this problem. For example, let's say that someone robs a bank. There is always a robber, and the law says that the robber should be sent to prison, but it is sometimes impossible to identify the robber, and in those cases, it is impossible to send the robber to prison. The legal system has ways to handle problems like this. With respect to copyright, it means that courts sometimes rule in favour of the person claiming to be the copyright holder, and sometimes in favour of the person who used the work. The fact that a court makes a certain ruling does not necessarily mean that the court has correctly identified the copyright status of the work, and the outcome can differ depending on what evidence the court has access to.
For example, assume that some theoretical person A uses a work. Some other theoretical person X claims to be the copyright holder to the work and sues person A for violation of copyright. However, person X is unable to provide evidence that he is the copyright holder, so the court rejects person X's claims, and person A does not need to pay compensation to person X. Next year, some other theoretical person B uses the work a second time. Person X has now searches through his drawers and finds some previously unknown documents. Person X sues person B and submits the documents to the court. The court looks at the documents and finds that there is now sufficient evidence that person X is the copyright holder, and so person B has to pay compensation to person X.
The same is true about copyright expiration. For example, let's assume that the case Person X v. Person A was a dispute about whether the copyright had expired. Evidence was unavailable, so the court ruled in one way, not sure which one. In the second case Person X v. Person B, such evidence had become available, and so the court might rule in the other way. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Stefan, you say, "theoretically, a work always has a copyright holder...." I don't think that's not strictly true. If the work is a work for hire and the employer is a corporation which closes its doors, then there are three possibilities. (1) There are no significant assets, so nothing is done about them; that is, there is no auction of other formal windup; (2) there is an auction, but only physical assets are sold -- the corporation's IP is not included as one of the lots sold; or (3) there is an auction and either a single buyer buys all the assets of the corporation or the IP is explicitly sold as one of the lots. In cases (1) and (2), any copyrights held by the corporation no longer have an owner. I have a lot of experience with corporate deaths and I would say that for smaller corporations -- less than 50 or 100 employees -- (1) or (2) is the case 95% of the time. I also wonder about a case where the creator died intestate and without any close relatives -- no spouse or children and parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents all single children and all dead.
As far as the first part of this thread goes, I don't see how there's a problem. If the author is unknown, then there is no one with standing to bring suit. Anyone claiming to be the copyright holder must prove a relationship (by kinship or contract) with the author, which means that the author cannot be unknown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If someone dies intestate without relatives to inherit, then the state claims it all. Even in the US, the government can administrate copyrights it owns even if it can't create them. I'm sure the case of a corporation folding has laws and case law to cover it; if a corporation folds with material property, like a copyright, and at some point it turns out to have value, an ensuing court case would either declare it the property of the corporate owners or the creditors. I'm sure if a corporation folds and at some point later it turned out to have stashed a painting in a bank vault that's now worth millions, it's not going to be ownerless. The fact that a copyright may have insufficient value for a court case is explicitly something we can't consider.
If the author is unknown to us, or even with a complete and total search of all publically available records, that does not mean that no one can prove ownership. There's a hairy mess of contract law, but I'm pretty sure that publishers can frequently sue for copyright infringement, even if the appropriate contracts have been destroyed, and it's not at all unlikely they can prove to the court's satisfaction that they own (or have exclusive license to) the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we merge and redirect en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights here?

Those articles seem to be more or less about the same... any thoughts on this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

w:WP:NUSC is a lot about COM:URAA, Commons:Subsisting copyright and copyright rules as of 1996, so the pages currently contain partially different information. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly: they are already partially duplicating one another. I think we would benefit from one page on the subject, not two. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Syria

Our section on Syria seems to be wrong; w:Copyright Law of Syria says they've signed the Berne Convention, and have corresponding life+50 laws. Do we have anyone who reads Arabic who can figure out exactly what the rules are?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

http://www.rtv.gov.sy/index.php?d=100349&id=130539 seems to be the most current law. As I said, anyone read Arabic?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Egypt

I have read and searched through the 2002 law found in English at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=1301. I find no support for the assertion on the project page that copyright for Egyptian photographs lasts only 25 years. A search on "photo" yields only the mention in the list of works that have copyright. A search on "25" yields a limitation on the term for applied arts, but photographs are not applied arts, they are listed separately.

The general copyright term is pma 50 and I think we should change the project page to that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest WIPO study on exceptions

1000 pages on 1723 exceptions for education in 188 states: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_33/sccr_33_6.pdf --Nemo 14:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Italy

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antoine Pinay 1955.jpg. Formally {{PD-Italy}} only applies if a photograph was created in Italy. How to deal with works that were created by Italian authors abroad? Materialscientist (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also appreciate a comment from a native speaker on Art. 189.: realizzati in Italia is translated as created in Italy. Is this translation unique or there is a room for interpretations (published, etc.)? Materialscientist (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hungary

Kétlem, hogy ezer év az elévülési idő. Tambo (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

China

Maybe some additions to the Chinese copyright laws can be made based on the discussion here for clarity. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

While there may be some information from the linked discussion that can be added to this page, I just want to let @Donald Trung: know that for reproductions of 2D artwork (which includes banknotes) Commons only cares that the original work is in the public domain in the source country and the US and it does not matter if the reproduction/scan is copyrighted in the source country. For the policy pages about the reason why, see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Why do we allow the PD-Art tag to be used for photographs from any country?. Also, have you seen Commons:Currency? AHeneen (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Split page content into subpages

This page is growing and growing. Logically we should split it into subpages by country/area. Otherwise the content is really heavy for most of readers. --Rezonansowy (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose Can't be done here. You need to start a RFC for this. Otherwise, oh boy. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hedwig in Washington: See Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Splitting up Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Is there a better place for the discussion? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: I'd leave it over at the village pump, more people read there than here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Belgium

Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Belgium

Belgium has a new copyright law. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Ecuador

"Art. 81. – Where the holder of rights in a work from the time of creation of the work is a legal person, the period of protection shall be 70 years from the making, disclosure or publication of the work, whichever is the later."

This appears to mean 70 years of corporate authorship. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Cambodian stamps

What is the copyright status of Category:Stamps of Cambodia in general (and for each state in history)?--Roy17 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • See COM:CRT/Cambodia. Stamps do not seem to fall into the "not protected" category, but under Article 16 the rights would be transferred to the employer, and expire 75 years after publication. I have no idea what the historical rules were. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No subpage for Antarctica?

I think some organizations that are active in Antarctica also rule their copyright policies, and so they may have different years-to-Public Domain, and different FOP cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Some countries have territorial claims in Antarctica, and even issue stamps and currency, but I doubt that they have copyright laws specific to Antarctica. Are there any examples of such laws? Aymatth2 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Documents issued by Bulgarian government bodies

Copied and translated (Google Translate with minor fixes, so may be a bit rough in places) from the Village Pump of bgwiki. — Luchesar • T/C/U 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Copied from Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria for better project visibility of the discussion. — Luchesar • T/C/U 12:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to gradually expand Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria to minimize some unfortunate misunderstandings causing valuable documents to be deleted from Commons without a real reason. I was prompted by some recent deletions, which included a volunteer certificate issued by the HQ of the Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps (MAVC).

Article 4 of the Bulgarian copyright law states that "normative and individual acts of government bodies, court acts, and the official translations of the aforementioned are not subject to copyright". MAVC is a historical military unit of the Bulgarian Army, therefore, according to the Armed Forces Act of the Bulgarian Kingdom (1904), it is subordinate to the Ministry of Defence/War, represented by the Minister of Defence/War. The legal authority of the acts of MAVC's HQ stems precisely from this interrelationship with the Bulgarian government. The certificates, themselves, represent individual administrative acts: they express the will of a government body, from which certain rights and / or obligations derive. Specifically, in the case with the certificates of the volunteers, "[t]he certificate entitles him [the volunteer] to all the rights and decorations established for MAVC members".

On the basis of the above considerations, it seems to me that we can assume that the certificates in question fall within the scope of Article 4 of the copyright law and are therefore not subject to copyright. We could also make a list of other similar documents to be added to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria, thus not wasting time with the same discussions being repeated over and over again with each new issue.

Pinging @Mardetanha, Spiritia, Алиса Селезньова, Мико, and Drenowe: . Mohsen, sorry for not providing a translation yet—I'll do it as soon as possible (and thank you so much again for your help!)
— Luchesar • T/C 19:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course they fall within that scope. MAVC is a standard Bulgarian military unit with divisional rank. -- Мико (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
MAVC is no different from the other divisions, except that it is volunteer, just like our current army. -- Алиса Селезньова (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, these are valuable papers, often unique, and it would be very good to have them in bgwiki. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the argument you gave is good .--Vodnokon4e (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Since more than two weeks have passed without objection, I suppose we have a consensus on this issue? I'll wait for two or three days more, and if things stays this way, I'll copy and translate this discussion into English at the weekend and update the page on Commons.
— Luchesar • T/C 16:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It has been more than a month since the beginning of the discussion, so the consensus is obviously indisputable. I've added the information to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Bulgaria.
— Luchesar • T/C/U 16:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Copied text from bgwiki ends here. Please add any possible replies below this line. — Luchesar • T/C/U 12:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata items

I connected many of the sub-pages of this page to existing items on Wikidata, so now many of them will have sitelinks (mostly to English and Russian wikis). I also created items for all the pages without one. You can see the list of the items and some properties here. I would like to connect them somehow to items like 50 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870405) / countries with 50 years pma or shorter (Q59621182) and in general store much of the content of the infoboxes of pages like Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria on Wikidata as well, so one can start using those properties in database queries. See d:Help:Copyrights. Pinging @Aymatth2: --Jarekt (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some random thoughts:
  • It would be useful to have this data in structured form in Wikidata for use in queries
  • There is the question of whether the Wikipedias or Wikimedia would be more accurate. The Wikipedias may give broader information on copyright in a given country including history, influences, legal disputes, assignment of rights, collective rights management, enforcement and so on. Wikimedia is more tightly focussed on how to determine if a given copy can be freely used commercially. Within its limits, Wikimedia may be more accurate because errors have more impact. If we could somehow use Wikidata as a focus for comparison, that would be useful.
  • WIPO has a repository of copyright information in their WIPO Lex database. In theory this has an up-to-date copy of every member's laws, although this is not always the case, e.g. COM:CRT/Angola. It might be possible to somehow compare the WIPO database to Wikimedia and spot discrepancies. Perhaps WIPO data could be periodically loaded into Wikidata. The CRT infoboxes could be extended to hold most recent version and date adopted, which could be compared to WIPO.
  • I personally dislike the name "50 years pma" (Q29870405), jargon that is never used in copyright laws and would be meaningless to most of our users.
  • There are always exceptions. COM:CRT/Latvia protects works for life + 70 years, but "With authors whose works were prohibited in Latvia or the use of which was restricted from June 1940 to May 1990, the years of prohibition or restriction are excluded from the term of the copyright." COM:CRT/France and COM:CRT/Abkhazia have similar clauses.
  • One problem for which we do not have a solution is handling retroactive changes, where works that were out of copyright when they were uploaded to Wikimedia go back into copyright. The PD template is not updated to show the new durations. Maybe some sort of query could find Wikimedia files that need review when the laws change.
  • Another problem is to locate dubious files like Spanish newspaper page images from 1948 tagged as "own work", where it is unlikely that all contributors have been dead for 70 years.
Without understanding exactly how the data would be structured or used, it certainly seems worthwhile to work on it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Aymatth2, Thanks for your thoughts. I will try to address some of them:
  • the Wikipedias or Wikimedia question I think is interesting and if the Wikidata item is the main glue we can cover multiple aspects of the copyrights with Wikipedias taking a deep dive into one ascoct and Wikimedia concentrating on practical uses.
  • About WIPO Lex database. I added described at URL (P973) with a link to the database to copyright law of Australia (Q5169249). That is attempt to create shortcuts to useful pages and if that is useful than we can do it to other items. Links to specific documents like https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/legislation/details/18588 can be added to reference URL (P854) to serve as a reference. I am not sure how to automatically search for discrepancies between our data and WIPO.
  • We do have an issue with names like "50 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870405)" as we are trying to balance short names with being understandable and correct. I think we are open to better suggestions, although, that works the best if there is a group of people involved. Perhaps something based on "life + 70 years"?
  • Yes the exceptions are everywhere and we need to be able to either model them or tag statement as having exceptions. For example US might have life + 70 years copyright term for recent works but not for older ones, we should be able to mark it somehow.
  • Retroactive copyrights could be modeled by adding beginning and end time qualifiers either to individual items (works) or to whole country laws.
  • Dubious copyright claims will be easier to spot by performing database queries. For example if some work claims that all authors died more than 100 years ago and we can compare it to dates of death for all authors, same with dates of publication, etc. I am experimenting with such queries at d:User:Jarekt/queries#copyright_related, but eventually they should be included in some more public forum. --Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
--Jarekt (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the above, these are interesting issues. I am working on this in Wikidata, and I have some questions and comments: d:Help talk:Copyrights#More items needed. 50 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870405) could be named "50 years after author's death": quite short and easily understandable by everybody. By the way, there are several issues with this item. Specifically, I am checking that all items from en:List of iconic photographs (and other famous photos), 1. have a corresponding Wikidata item, 2. have complete copyright information. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I renamed 50 years or more after author(s) death (Q29870405) to "50 years after author's death". If there is no opposition we can change other similar items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarekt (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 February 2019‎ (UTC)

Palestinian territories

Has anyone any idea about the copyright rules for the Palestinian territories? Huldra (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Israel left existing laws in place when they occupied the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so the Copyright Ordinance 1924, based on the UK Copyright Act 1911, would still apply. Just a personal opinion... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Huldra (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, but I'm afraid it won't be so simple. As for „West Bank“, the territories were annexed by Jordan in 1948–1967, whose legal system was based on French Civil Law as well as Islamic Shari’a law and whose intellectual property laws were based solely on traditional Ottoman law. (Prof. Mohammad Issa Mehawesh's opinion, not mine). Had Israel really left existing laws as you say, this should be the status until now. On the other hand, it is possible that Israel reinstalled the British copyright law, since the Jordanian annexation hasn't been recognized, and that's the status now. And it's also possible that Israel applies the Israeli copyright law (the Copyright Act from 2007 and the international treaties) on the territories under Israeli civilian administration. I don't even try a guess about what's the status on the territories under Palestinian civil administration(s).--Shlomo (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
My thinking is that neither the PLO nor Israel recognise the Jordanian annexation, Israel would not implement Israeli laws since that could be taken to imply annexation, so the pre-1948 laws would remain. This source gives more information. I imagine no two lawyers would agree. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
So far, we should just redirect Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Palestinian territories to Israel subpage, rather than creating that from scratch, right? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer a separate subpage, since the Palestinian territories are not part of Israel. A subpage could provide the background and different views on the subject, with sources, which might be useful. There is a risk it would become a bit of a battlefield. I could make a start if there is agreement here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. Please go ahead. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone hijacked my userid and started Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Palestinian territories. It should be at least partly protected. I take no responsibility for the accuracy or utility of any statements in this version. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected. Thanks for starting it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

TOO China

Just making a note here. The Gang Heng logo case added by User:Wcam recently shows that TOO can be extremely low in China. I'd say it's as low as the United Kingdom, if not lower. Some reference materials: [4][5] coloured version.--Roy17 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Moral rights

I think it should be important to mention the moral rights, which apply in most European countries and probably elsewhere. Especially for those from other legal traditions, they may be surprising (and also for some Europeans who have their copyright knowledge from here). It is e.g. allowed to sue for lack of attribution even if one has licensed one's work under CC-zero (at least in Finland, for "works", not photos – one cannot waive those rights by a general statement). --LPfi (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Some countries and areas even have perpetual moral rights, so Chinese, Macanese, and Taiwanese works expect attribution even after expired copyrights.--Jusjih (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
CC-Zero attempts to waive moral rights as well, but yes, they are usually non-transferrable (they are not technically waive-able) and sometimes perpetual, or last at least as long as the copyright, depending on country. I don't think the penalties are anywhere near economic right violations though, at least usually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

UK Freedom of panorama

Hi I have a problem with this paragraph at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama:

Note that under UK law, "works of artistic craftsmanship" are defined separately from "graphic works". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder.

This isn't backed up by the law. "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are explicitly not defined separately from "graphic works" ... instead, section 4 says:

In this Part "artistic work" means— (a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality, (b)a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or (c)a work of artistic craftsmanship.

Thus it seems clear that actually "Works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works" are both "artistic works". Section 62 is entitled "Representation of certain artistic works on public display" and thus refers to both "Works of artistic craftsmanship" and "graphic works", as well as "works of architecture" implicitly

I'd therefore like to change the paragraph in question to:

Note that under UK law, “artistic works” are defined as "a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality" or "a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building" or "a work of artistic craftsmanship". Graphic works are defined in Section 4 as "(a) any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan or (b) any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work; “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film; “sculpture” includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture. The freedoms provided by Section 62 apply to all of these. This means all artistic works on public display can be photographed and the photographs can be uploaded to commons.

This would then mean editing the rest of section as well. I thought I'd check in here before doing so... Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I think this update would be incorrect. I agree that in the terms of the Act a graphic work is also an artistic work. However, section 62 doesn't apply to all artistic works, only to buildings, sculptures, models for buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship. These four terms precisely map to four of the terms in section 4(1):
In this Part "artistic work" means—
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
(b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
So graphic works, photographs, and collages are artistic works that are not covered by section 62. --bjh21 (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah thanks a lot for the explanation, I just wasn't reading it that way at all. I've had to read the relevant sections again a few times and I think you are correct. From discussion here I've also read this which backs up what you are saying. Thanks again! Mujinga (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I still wanna know that which file is an example of "works of artistic craftsmanship". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

USMCA and Canada

As the USMCA was passed last year, am I right to assume that Canada is now life plus 70 years per [6] ? Commons currently has Canada under life plus 50 years. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Canada is obligated to change their law to 70pma at some point in the next year or two, but it hasn't actually happened yet. Most likely, they would not restore works already public domain (or public domain before the effective date of the new law). And there could be other details, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay then. Thank you for the reply :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Updated copyright laws for Saudi Arabia and Yemen

Posting here, as the thread I started at COM:VPC was just archived without discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia (amended 2018)

The new copyright law now is Copyright Law (promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/41 of 2 Rajab 1424 (August 30, 2003), and amended by Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 536 of 19/10/1439 AH (July 3, 2018)). COM:CRT/Saudi Arabia may need updating. Upon a first glance of it there is still no FoP provision. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yemen (amended 2012)

I accessed the WIPO database for Yemen, and found out that their current copyright law is the Law No. 15 of 2012 on the Protection of Copyright and Related Rights, which repealed the Intellectual Property Law (Presidential Decree No. 19 of 1994 on Intellectual Property), the law indicated at Yemen's CRT page. I can't say if this will change some things at COM:CRT/Yemen. Reading its "exceptions" (Chapter VII, Exceptions & Restrictions of Financial Rights — articles 40-48), it appears there is still no FoP provision. BTW, under Chapter II (Art. 3), protected works include: (7) Works of lines or colors drawing, digging, graving, adornment, stone sculptures, metal or wood epigraphy, carpets, and any other works, (8) Works of maps and Rocco schemes, and (9) Solid works concerning geography, topography, science or architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Support updating, I just oppose any legal explain texts that are outdated, as the acts are modified, the explanations should just be updated to reflect the newest de jure cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Archive_1&oldid=630338263"